DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 12-14, 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 12, lines 17-19 cite “wherein lengths, in the first direction, of at least some of the first protrusions and at least some of the second protrusions overlapping portions of the foldable area closer to a folding axis of the foldable area are smaller than lengths, in the first direction of at least some of the first protrusions and at least some of the second protrusions overlapping portions of the foldable area farther from the folding axis”. No support for this limitation was found in the disclosure provided by the applicant.
The scope claimed where an unspecified number or “some” of the protrusions are compared to another unspecified number of other protrusions specifically as a function of distance from the folding axis does not appear to be supported. Paragraphs 87-89, describing Fig. 9 does support “a length of each of the first and second protrusions 211a and 212a of a plurality of segmental elements 210 may be different” and then presents two examples (¶89 and ¶91) with specific comparisons:
“the length, in the second direction DR2, of the first protrusion 211a of the first segmental element 211 overlapping the center of the foldable area FA may be smaller than the length, in the second direction DR2, of the first protrusion 211a of the first segmental element 211 overlapping the edge of the foldable area FA” (¶89)
“the length, in the second direction DR2, of the second protrusions 212a of the second segmental element 212 overlapping the center of the foldable area FA may be smaller than the length, in the second direction DR2, of the second protrusion 212a of the second segmental element 212 overlapping the edge of the foldable area FA” (¶91).
Further, these examples only compare a single protrusion from within the folding area to one overlapping the edge of the foldable area (respectively for elements 211 and 212 with protrusions 211a and 212a). The instant claim only established a plurality of first and second segmental elements overlapping the foldable area and does delineate any particular “edge” segmental elements.
For example, Applicant may consider an amendment to the effect of the below as a way to claim the length differences that is supported by the aforementioned paragraphs.
“…
wherein a center first segmental element of the plurality of first segmental elements overlaps the center of the folding area and has a center first protrusion from the first plurality of protrusions;
wherein an edge first segmental element of the plurality of first segmental elements overlaps the edge of the folding area and has an edge first protrusion from the first plurality of protrusions;
a center second segmental element of the plurality of second segmental elements overlaps the center of the folding area and has a center second protrusion from the second plurality of protrusions;
wherein an edge second segmental element of the plurality of second segmental elements overlaps the edge of the folding area and has an edge second protrusion from the second plurality of protrusions; and
wherein the length of the center first protrusion is smaller than then the length of the edge first protrusion and the length of the center second protrusion is smaller than then the length of the edge second protrusion
Claims 13-14, 16-20 are rejected by virtue of dependency to claim 12.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-4, 9, 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (WO 2022065896; “Lee” hereinafter), in view of Ryou et al (US 20220011814; “Ryou” hereinafter), and further in view of Park (US 20180307338; “Park” hereinafter).
Regarding claim 1, Lee discloses: a display device comprising:
a display panel (141, fig. 14) including a non-folding area (31, 32) and a foldable area (33) adjacent to the non-folding area (fig. 4), the display panel further including a light emitting layer extending across both the non-folding area and the foldable area (141a, fig. 14, where 141a is part of flexible display 30, which clearly and unequivocally, extends across both the non-folding area 31,32 and the foldable area 33, fig. 4, “in order to reduce the folding stress applied to the folding area 33 of the flexible display 30 , the laminated structure included in the flexible display 30 may be designed to buffer stress during bending, ¶[97]);
a base film (143, fig. 14) disposed under the display panel in the foldable area (fig. 14); and
a support member (500, fig. 5) disposed under the display panel and including:
a flat part (510, 520, fig. 5) overlapping the non-folding area (figs. 2-4, ¶[80]);
a plurality of first segmental elements (79, 77, 75, 73, 71, figs. 13-14) disposed on a bottom surface of the base film overlapping the foldable area (figs. 2-5, 14, ¶[80], ¶[96]); and
a plurality of second segmental elements (78, 76, 74, 72, fig. 13) disposed on a bottom surface of the base overlapping the foldable area (figs. 2-5, 14, ¶[80], ¶[96]) and respectively coupled to the plurality of first segmental elements (figs. 13-14 and 19, ¶[96]).
Lee does not explicitly teach:
adhesive members disposed under the display panel in the non-folding area;
the base film disposed between the adhesive members,
wherein the base film is further disposed between portions of the flat part contacting the adhesive members without extending into the non-folding area.
However, Ryou teaches:
a foldable display device (DD) comprising adhesive members (LAL1, LAL2, fig. 7A) disposed under a display panel (DM) in the non-folding area (NFA3, NFA4, fig. 7A), and a base film (LNP) disposed between the adhesive members (fig. 7A).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Lee and include Ryou’s adhesive members, such that the adhesive members are disposed under the display panel in the non-folding area, with the base film disposed between said adhesive members, in order to secure the non-folding areas, and not the foldable area, for the advantage of reducing folding stress of the electronic device. The claim would have been obvious because the particular known technique was recognized as part of the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art, as evidenced by Ryou. Therefore, the claimed subject matter would have been no more than a predictable combination of a plurality of known techniques according to their respective purposes within routine skill and creativity (§MPEP 2143).
Lee in view of Ryou does not explicitly teach:
wherein the base film is further disposed between portions of the flat part contacting the adhesive members without extending into the non-folding area.
However, Park teaches:
a base film (300-5, fig. 14) is further disposed between portions of a flat part (210-5, fig. 14, ¶[0122]) without extending into a non-folding area (NFA, fig. 14).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Lee in view of Ryou with Park’s teaching, such that the base film is further disposed between portions of the flat part contacting the adhesive members without extending into the non-folding area, in order to prevent or reduce the phenomenon in which the display panel is damaged due to the folding stress applied between the flat part and the display panel (¶[0125]). The claim would have been obvious because the particular known technique was recognized as part of the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art, as evidenced by Park. Therefore, the claimed subject matter would have been no more than a predictable combination of a plurality of known techniques according to their respective purposes within routine skill and creativity (§MPEP 2143).
Regarding claim 2, Lee in view of Ryou and Park discloses the limitations of claim 1, and Lee further discloses:
wherein each of the plurality of first segmental elements includes:
a plurality of first protrusions (1153a) protruding from a first surface (854) of each of the plurality of first segmental elements (figs. 10-11 and 13); and
a plurality of first depressions (1151b) depressed from a second surface (853) opposite to the first surface of each of the plurality of first segmental elements (figs. 10-11 and 13), and
wherein each of the plurality of second segmental elements includes:
a plurality of second protrusions (corresponding instance of 1153a) protruding from a first surface (corresponding instance of 854) of each of the plurality of second segmental elements; and
a plurality of second depressions (corresponding instance of 1151b) depressed from a second surface (corresponding instance of 853) of each of the plurality of second segmental elements opposite to the first surface.
Regarding claim 3, Lee in view of Ryou and Park discloses the limitations of claim 1, and Lee further discloses:
wherein the plurality of first segmental elements and the plurality of second segmental elements are alternately arranged (see fig. 13).
Regarding claim 4, Lee in view of Ryou and Park discloses the limitations of claim 2, and Lee further discloses:
wherein the first protrusions of a first segmental element among the plurality of first segmental elements are coupled to the second depressions of an adjacent second segmental element of the plurality of second segmental elements, respectively, and
wherein the first depressions of the first segmental element are coupled to the second protrusions of another adjacent second segmental element of the plurality of second segmental elements, respectively (the limitations of this claim are clearly disclosed in fig. 13).
Regarding claim 9, Lee in view of Ryou and Park discloses the limitations of claim 1, and Lee further discloses:
wherein the base film contacts first surfaces of the plurality of first segmental elements and first surfaces of the plurality of second segmental elements facing the display panel (fig. 14 discloses this limitation).
Regarding claim 11, Lee in view of Ryou and Park discloses the limitations of claim 1, and Lee further discloses:
the support member includes metal or fiber reinforced plastic (¶[80]).
Claims 5 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee, in view of Ryou and Park, and further in view of Vanska et al (US 20130286553; “Vanska” hereinafter).
Regarding claim 5, Lee in view of Ryou and Park discloses the limitations of claim 2, but does not explicitly disclose: wherein an end of each of the first protrusions and the second protrusions has a circular shape, and a part of each of the first depressions and the second depressions respectively contacting the end of each of the first protrusions and the second protrusions has a rounded shape.
However, Vanska teaches:
a first segmental element (6) comprising a protrusion (20, fig. 5B) has a circular chape (7, fig. 5B), and a part of each depression (42, fig. 5B) of a second segmental element (4, fig. 5B) contacting the end of each of the first protrusions (¶[0024]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to apply Vanska’s teaching into Lee as modified by Ryou and Park so that an end of each of the first protrusions and the second protrusions has a circular shape, and a part of each of the first depressions and the second depressions respectively contacting the end of each of the first protrusions and the second protrusions has a rounded shape, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the shape of a component. A change in shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP 2144.04).
Regarding claim 6, Lee in view of Ryou and Park discloses the limitations of claim 2, but does not explicitly disclose: wherein an end of each of the first protrusions and the second protrusions has a rectangular shape, and a part of each of the first depressions and the second depressions respectively contacting the end of each of the first protrusions and second protrusions has a rectangular shape.
However, Vanska teaches:
a first segmental element (52, fig. 8) comprising a protrusion (7, fig. 8) has a rectangular shape (see 7, fig. 8), and a part of each depression (1, fig. 8) of a second segmental element (second instance of 52, fig. 8) contacting the end of each of the first protrusions (¶[0024], ¶[0078]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to apply Vanska’s teaching into Lee as modified by Ryou and Park, so that an end of each of the first protrusions and the second protrusions has a rectangular shape, and a part of each of the first depressions and the second depressions respectively contacting the end of each of the first protrusions and second protrusions has a rectangular shape, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the shape of a component. A change in shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP 2144.04).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee, in view of Ryou, Park and Vanska et al (US 20130286553; “Vanska” hereinafter), and further in view of Liu (US 20230085123; “Liu” hereinafter).
Regarding claim 7, Lee in view of Ryou, Park and Vanska teaches the limitation of claim 6, but does not explicitly disclose: wherein the end of each of the first protrusions and the second protrusions is asymmetrical with respect to a center line passing through centers of the corresponding first protrusions and second protrusions.
However, Liu teaches:
a flexible display screen (2, fig. 4) and a support member (11, fig. 4) comprising a protrusion (312), wherein the end the protrusion is asymmetrical with respect to a center line passing through center of the protrusion (fig. 5).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to apply Liu’s teaching into Lee as modified by Ryou, Park and Vanska such that the end of each of the first protrusions and the second protrusions is asymmetrical with respect to a center line passing through centers of the corresponding first protrusions and second protrusions, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the shape of a component. A change in shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP 2144.04).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee, in view of Ryou and Park, and further in view of Cai et al (US 20210325929; “Cai” hereinafter).
Regarding claim 8, Lee in view of Ryou and Park discloses the limitations of claim 1, but does not explicitly disclose: wherein the base film includes a silicon-based material.
However, Cai teaches:
a base film (13, fig. 8) includes a silicon-based material (¶[0132]-[0133]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to apply Cai’s teaching into Lee in view of Ryou and Park, so that the base film includes a silicon-based material, in order to release certain bending stress when the support member is bent, thereby further improving the fatigue resistance of the member. Furthermore, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious engineering choice (MPEP 2144.07).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee, in view of Ryou and Park, and further in view of Jung et al (US 20220058991; “Jung” hereinafter).
Regarding claim 10, Lee in view of Ryou and Park discloses the limitations of claim 1, but does not explicitly disclose: wherein the base film contacts a second surface opposite to a first surface of each of the plurality of first segmental elements and the plurality of second segmental elements, wherein the first surface faces the display panel.
However, Jung teaches:
PNG
media_image1.png
626
819
media_image1.png
Greyscale
a base film (500 and 452, fig. 4), wherein the base film contacts a second surface (see annotated fig. 4 below) opposite to a first surface (see annotated fig. 4 below) of segmental element (see annotated fig. 4 below) of a support member (SM, fig. 4), wherein the first surface faces the display panel (100, fig. 4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to apply Jung’s teaching of into Lee in view of Ryou and Park, such that a base film contacts a second surface opposite to a first surface of each of the plurality of first segmental elements and the plurality of second segmental elements, wherein the first surface faces the display panel, in order to enhance the durability the plurality of first segmental elements and the plurality of second segmental elements upon repeated folding and unfolding of the display device (¶[0115]). Moreover, the claimed subject matter would have been no more than a predictable combination of known techniques according to their respective purposes within routine skill and creativity (MPEP 2143).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee, in view of Kauhaniemi et al (US 20150131222; “Kauhaniemi” hereinafter).
Regarding claim 12 (as best understood), Lee discloses: a display device comprising:
a display panel (141, fig. 14) including a non-folding area (31, 32) and a foldable area (33) adjacent to the non-folding area (fig. 4);
a support member (500, fig. 5) disposed under the display panel and including:
a flat part (510, 520, fig. 5) overlapping the non-folding area (figs. 2-4, ¶[80]);
a plurality of first segmental elements (79, 77, 75, 73, 71, fig. 13) overlapping the foldable area (figs. 2-4, ¶[80]) and including a plurality of first protrusions (1153a, 1151a, figs. 10-11) protruding from first surfaces (811, 831, 851, 871, 891 fig. 11) of the plurality of first segmental elements,
and a plurality of second segmental elements (78, 76, 74, 72, fig. 13) overlapping the foldable area (¶[80]) and alternately arranged with the plurality of first segmental elements along a first direction (horizontal direction, as disclosed in fig. 13), wherein the plurality of second segmental elements includes a plurality of second protrusions (corresponding instances of 1153a, 1151a, fig. 11) protruding from a first surface (corresponding instance of 821, 841, 861, 881, fig. 13) of the plurality of second segmental elements, wherein the plurality of second segmental elements are respectively coupled to the plurality of first segmental elements (figs. 19-20); and
a base film (143, fig. 14) disposed on each of the plurality of first segmental elements and the plurality of second segmental elements (fig. 14),
Lee does not explicitly disclose:
wherein lengths, in the first direction, of at least some of the first protrusions and at least some of the second protrusions increase with increasing distance from a folding axis of the foldable area.
However, Kauhaniemi teaches:
wherein lengths, in a first direction (horizontal direction), of at least some of the first protrusions (33 and 43, annotated as ‘FP’ in annotated fig. 5A in the following page, see also fig. 4B) and at least some of the second protrusions (33 and 43, annotated as ‘SP’ in annotated fig. 5A in the following page, see also fig. 4B) increase with increasing distance from a folding axis (as understood upon examination of fig. 5A) of the foldable area (5, figs. 1C, 5B-5D) (as disclosed upon examination of fig. 5A).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to apply Kauhaniemi’s teaching of into Lee, such that in the first direction of at least some of the first protrusions and at least some of the second protrusions have different length
within the foldable area, in order to restricts further bending of the foldable area and may prevent the radius of curvature of the foldable area exceeding a threshold (¶[0082]). Moreover, the claimed subject matter would have been no more than a predictable combination of known techniques according to their respective purposes within routine skill and creativity (MPEP 2143).
PNG
media_image2.png
460
570
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 13, Lee in view of Kauhaniemi discloses the limitations of claim 12, and Lee further discloses:
wherein each of the plurality of first segmental elements further includes a plurality of first depressions (1151b, 1153b, fig. 11) depressed from a second surface (812, 832, 852, 872, 892, fig. 13) opposite to the first surface of each of the plurality of first segmental elements, and
wherein each of the plurality of second segmental elements further includes a plurality of second depressions (corresponding instances of 1151b, 1153b, fig. 11) depressed from a second surface (822, 842, 862, 883, fig. 13) opposite to the first surface of each of the plurality of second segmental elements.
Regarding claim 14, Lee in view of Kauhaniemi discloses the limitations of claim 13, and Lee further discloses:
wherein the first protrusion of a first segmental element among the plurality of first segmental elements are male coupled to the second depression of an adjacent second segmental element of the plurality of second segmental elements that are female, respectively, and wherein the first depression of the first segmental element are female coupled to the second protrusion of another adjacent second segmental element of the plurality of second segmental elements that are male, respectively (fig. 13 clearly discloses this limitation)
Regarding claim 20, Lee in view of Kauhaniemi discloses the limitations of claim 13, and Lee further discloses:
wherein each of the plurality of first segmental elements and the plurality of second segmental elements extends in a second direction (vertical direction) intersecting the first direction (the thickness profile of the first segmental elements and the plurality of second segmental elements in fig. 14 teaches this limitation).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 15 allowed:
Regarding claim 15, the prior art of record taken alone or in combination, fails to teach or fairly suggest,
a combination of limitations that teach: A display device comprising; a display panel including a non-folding area and a foldable area adjacent to the non-folding area; a support member disposed under the display panel and including: a flat part overlapping the non-folding area; a plurality of first segmental elements overlapping the foldable area and including a plurality of first protrusions protruding from first surfaces of the plurality of first segmental elements: and a plurality of second segmental elements overlapping the foldable area and alternately arranged with the plurality of first segmental elements along the first direction wherein the plurality of second segmental elements includes a plurality of second protrusions protruding from a first surface of the plurality of second segmental elements, wherein the plurality of second segmental elements are respectively coupled to the plurality of first segmental elements; and a base film disposed on each of the plurality of first segmental elements and the plurality of second segmental elements, wherein a length, in the first direction, of each of the first protrusions overlapping a center of the foldable area is smaller than a length, in the first direction, of each of the first protrusions overlapping an edge of the foldable area, and wherein a length, in the first direction, of each of second protrusions overlapping the center of the foldable area is smaller than a length, in the first direction, of each of the second protrusions overlapping the edge of the foldable area. None of the reference art of record discloses or renders obvious such a combination.
Claims 16-19 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 1st paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Regarding claim 16, the prior art of record taken alone or in combination, fails to teach or fairly suggest,
in combination with other limitations recited in claims 12-13, a combination of limitations that teaches:
wherein each of the first protrusions includes a first neck end and a first end, wherein the first neck end is spaced apart from the first surface of the corresponding first segmental element, and the first end extends from the first neck end, and wherein each of the second protrusions includes a second neck end and second end, wherein the second neck end is spaced from the first surface of the corresponding second segmental elements, and the second end extends from the second neck end. None of the reference art of record discloses or renders obvious such a combination.
Claim 17-19 are objected to by virtue of dependency to claim 16.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 12 have been addressed in the 112(a) rejection presented above in this office action.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
/ALLEN L PARKER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2841
/P.K./Examiner, Art Unit 2841
Prosecution Insights